List contests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that status is computed (upcoming/ongoing/past) and that the returned ObjectId is the shared key for other contest tools, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, or result-set limitations. This is adequate but not deeply behaviorally transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler. The first front-loads the resource and return fields; the second delivers the key integration insight about ObjectId reuse. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what is returned and why it matters. The only notable gap is the absence of sort-order information, which matters when paging through contests with skip/limit; this is a minor omission given the rich schema and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (skip, limit, status, response_format) are already documented with types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond mentioning computed status values already present in the schema enum, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource ('List Repovive contests') and enumerates the exact returned fields, making it clearly distinct from detail, registration, and admin-list siblings. The closing sentence about the ObjectId reinforces its role as the canonical contest enumeration tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sentence 'The ObjectId returned here is what every other contest tool needs' provides a clear integration cue: call this tool first to obtain IDs for other contest operations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as repovive_get_contest for single-contest details or repovive_build_list_admin_contests for admin-specific listing, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.